4 ms·

Others already wrote that lots of the studies this book is based on have been called into question, here's a summary: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/re

by hannob 7y ago

Others already wrote that lots of the studies this book is based on have been called into question, here's a summary: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-... Please note also that Kahneman himself left a comment there stating: "I accept the basic conclusions of this blog."

Symmetry 7y ago
Yeah. Kahneman himself didn't do to badly in the replication crisis but a lot of the research that was used in his book did. It would be great if he could release a new, shorter edition or something.
blub 7y ago
The book contains much more than priming though, doesn't it? I only listened to a few chapters and lost interest.
tootie 7y ago
Kahneman, like any scientist, can only really present our best thinking at the time of writing. It's not like anything he wrote about was conjecture or pseudoscience. There are studies to back everything he wrote about. In most cases, there was and still is ample evidence. Some are now considered questionable after contrary evidence was found. None have really been "disproven" but are much less certain. And I don't think he presented any of it with an air of mathematically certainty. Still a great book.
- smsm42 7y ago
  It is important to separate wrong results from the person who does or publishes them. There's always chance that some research fails to reproduce. Proper controls and methodology reduce it, but it's still there. Especially in fields where the science just begins to understand the basics and where the matters are as complex and diverse as human behavior. We shouldn't be afraid to question the conclusions if they don't reproduce because it might imply that it was "conjecture or pseudoscience". Sometimes it is, but often it isn't - it's just this particular theory proven to be not true. Happens all the time to the very best of scientists.

by hannob 7y ago

Symmetry 7y ago

Yeah. Kahneman himself didn't do to badly in the replication crisis but a lot of the research that was used in his book did. It would be great if he could release a new, shorter edition or something.

blub 7y ago

The book contains much more than priming though, doesn't it? I only listened to a few chapters and lost interest.

tootie 7y ago

Kahneman, like any scientist, can only really present our best thinking at the time of writing. It's not like anything he wrote about was conjecture or pseudoscience. There are studies to back everything he wrote about. In most cases, there was and still is ample evidence. Some are now considered questionable after contrary evidence was found. None have really been "disproven" but are much less certain. And I don't think he presented any of it with an air of mathematically certainty. Still a great book.

smsm42 7y ago
It is important to separate wrong results from the person who does or publishes them. There's always chance that some research fails to reproduce. Proper controls and methodology reduce it, but it's still there. Especially in fields where the science just begins to understand the basics and where the matters are as complex and diverse as human behavior. We shouldn't be afraid to question the conclusions if they don't reproduce because it might imply that it was "conjecture or pseudoscience". Sometimes it is, but often it isn't - it's just this particular theory proven to be not true. Happens all the time to the very best of scientists.